Joop Koppenjan

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT AND POLICY NETWORKS FOUNDATIONS OF A NETWORK APPROACH TO GOVERNANCE

In this article we address the elaboration of the central concepts of a theory of networks and of network management. We suggest that the network approach builds on several theoretical traditions. After this we clarify the theoretical concepts and axioms of the policy network approach and argue that this framework has important explanatory power both on the level of strategic interaction processes as well as on the level of institutional relations. We argue that governments special resources and its unique legitimacy as representative of the common Interest make it the outstanding candidate for fulfilling the role of network manager, a role which means arranging and facilitating interaction processes within networks In such a way that problems of under or non representation are properly addressed and interests are articulated and dealt with in an open, transparent and balanced manner.

BUILDING PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: Assessing and managing risks in port development

In recent years increasing dependencies between public and private organizations lead to a growing need for public-private partnerships. However, cultural and institutional differences between the public and private domain and, in addition, the difficulties of bringing the two together, constitute a serious threat to successful public-private partnership. The formation of these partnerships is further hindered by confusion of the concept of public-private partnership. The predominant model of contracting out restricts rather than enhances public-private interaction. This article deals with the difficulties and risks involved in building public-private partnerships and tries to answer the question of how to overcome them. The issue is illustrated by an analysis of the attempts made to realize a huge port expansion in the port of Rotterdam by means of establishing public-private partnership.

Politicians and Interactive Decision Making: Institutional Spoilsports or Playmakers

In recent years interactive decision making has become quite popular in The Netherlands, especially at the level of local government. It involves new forms of participation of citizens, consumers of public services and interest groups in the process of policy formation. Workshops, panels, internet discussions and a lot of other techniques are used to arrive at innovative and supported solutions for existing problems. The ambitions are high: these new forms of participation should result in better government both in the sense of providing better policies, but also in bridging the democratic gap between local government and citizens. However, these new forms of participation in local government are not without problems. Recent experiences suggest that one of the major problems is the challenge interactive decision making constitutes for the existing practice of representative politics. On the basis of two cases — the decision-making process concerning the expansion of the Rotterdam Harbour and the discussion about a new administrative structure for the Rotterdam region — this article illustrates that one of the barriers that stands in the way of the success of such processes is the ambiguous attitude of elected politicians. Although politicians often initiate interactive decision-making processes, they do not actively support these processes when they are in progress. The outcomes of interactive decision-making progress are often not used in the formal political procedures that follow. Because elected politicians fear that these new forms of participation threaten their political primacy, they find it hard to play a constructive role in these processes.

Governance network theory: Past, present and future

markdownabstract__Abstract__ This article argues that governance network theory (GNT) has developed into a fullyfledged theory that has gained prominence within public administration. The emergence of New Public Governance opens up new challenges, however, and instead of governance networks and network governance replacing the traditional public administration model and New Public Management, hybrid practices will emerge. Addressing this topic, andother new challenges, will require GNT to further develop, and perhaps even reinvent itself. This is not without risks. If GNT evolves into a theory of everything, it will lose its explanatory power.

Public participation in China: sustainable urbanization and governance

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to focus on the governance aspects of Chinas environmental policy making and the conditions for meaningful public participation in sustainable urbanization policy making. China is facing a big urbanization challenge. Rapid economic growth and inefficient use of natural resources lead to excessive pollution and rapid depletion of Chinas natural resources. Water scarcity, especially in the north‐eastern part of the country, already is a big problem. The Chinese government has formulated policies and legislation to protect the environment and to produce a more sustainable growth, but implementation is lagging. Moreover, rapid modernization of Chinese society also led to first experiments with the organization of public hearings on environmental issues. Design/methodology/approach – Literature is presented on governance and public participation in environmental policy making supplemented with material from case study research and expert meetings in China. Findings – The findings show the interrelatedness of environmental governance and public participation, which leads to policy recommendations for public participation in sustainable urbanization processes. Originality/value – This paper highlights the potential environmental gains through public participation in sustainable urbanization strategy policy in China.

INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN Changing institutional features of networks

Abstract Within public administration and policy sciences the concept of policy networks nowadays is well accepted. Not much attention has been paid so far to strategies aimed at institutional design. Therefore, in this article, we develop a conceptual framework to study institutional design more thoroughly. We do this by specifying the nature and variety of institutional rules that guide the behaviour of actors within networks. Given this categorization of rules, we identify possible strategies to change network rules. Next, we focus on the strategic context of attempts to influence the nature of institutional rules: the process of institutional design. We conclude with suggestions to apply the conceptual framework to empirical research into the forms, impacts and implications of attempts to change the institutional features of policy networks.

Institutional design for complex technological systems

Complex technological systems like telecom, energy and transport infrastructures are subject to institutional (re)design. Institutions concern different levels of analysis like laws and regulations as well as contracts and organisations which regulate and coordinate the behaviour of actors in complex networks. In relation to technological and process design, we discuss how efficient and effective institutions can be designed according to structure behaviour in such a way that socially desired objectives are realised. After analysing the stabilising and instrumental role of institutions, we introduce a four-layer model, which offers the building blocks for identifying the steps to be considered in processes of institutional design. After having discussed the constraints in designing institutions, we present a generic model meant to be helpful in structuring the process of designing institutions in complex technological systems.

Creating a playing field for assessing the effectiveness of network collaboration by performance measures

Abstract This contribution addresses the question of how the effectiveness of network collaboration can be assessed and how performance measures may be helpful in doing so. The first part of the article discusses the difficulties of determining effectiveness in network collaboration and the limitations of ex ante formulated objectives and performance measures. The analysis of three cases in the second part of the contribution shows the differences between assessing effectiveness in a coordination network, where there are not initial agreed upon goals, as compared to collaborative networks in which parties share a common policy program. In the latter situation, objectives are shared and possibilities exist for prior agreements regarding performance. Conditions for establishing effectiveness seem to be more favorable then in coordination networks. In practice, however, assessing effectiveness of networks often happens in an erratic and unstructured way, using ad hoc performance criteria which may differ from the original objectives, and which parties may not share. This may lead to a power struggle and a blame game. Improvement may be expected from a more conscious way of arranging processes by which effectiveness is assessed. Such arrangements should include agreements on the content and role of performance measures.

Interactive Decision Making and Representative Democracy: Institutional Collisions and Solutions

In the Netherlands in recent years various initiatives have been taken by government authorities to introduce new forms of participation in policy formation and decision making. Under the variety of headings, such as participative policy formation, interactive decision making, and open planning process, various ministries, provinces and local governments have been experimenting with forms of participation in which citizens, consumers and interest organizations as well as private companies and other governmental organizations are invited to contribute ideas and discuss desirable solutions to policy problems.

Consensus and Conflict in Policy Networks: Too Much or Too Little?

One of the criticisms of theories on policy networks and governance is the lack of attention devoted to power and conflict (Barns 1997). Indeed, reading through the literature on policy networks — and especially on policy network management — one is struck by the approach to the network processes and management challenges as a politically neutral and predominantly managerial activity (for example, Agranoff 1986, 2003; O’Toole 1988; Mandel 1990, 2001; Glasbergen 1995; Kickert et al. 1997). Key concepts are interdependencies and coordination. Due to interdependencies between a diverse set of public and private actors, public decision making, implementation and service delivery is about mobilizing, facilitating and guiding collaboration processes. These processes can be characterized as problem solving: putting pieces of a puzzle together, realizing package deals that provide win-win situations: solutions that benefit all of the involved actors and society as a whole (Scharpf 1978; Dery 1984).